History Repeats: Then vs. Now—Parallel Paths to Authoritarian Rule

Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Germany was the result of a series of political, economic, and social crises that had plagued the country following World War I. The Treaty of Versailles, which placed full blame for the war on Germany, imposed harsh reparations and led to a profound sense of humiliation and disillusionment. Combined with the devastation of the Great Depression, which crippled the Weimar Republic and left millions unemployed, this climate of despair set the stage for extremist ideologies. In this environment, Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party) presented themselves as the saviors of Germany, promising to restore the nation’s former glory. Like Hitler, Trump capitalized on a similar sense of national crisis, exploiting economic frustrations and a desire for change to fuel his rise. In Trump’s case, it was the decline of certain industries, like manufacturing, and the feeling among many Americans that their country was in decline, which provided fertile ground for populist rhetoric. Both leaders were able to position themselves as champions of the “common man,” blaming outsiders and elites for the country’s woes and promising a return to greatness.

Once in power, both Hitler and Trump worked swiftly to consolidate their authority. Hitler’s regime dismantled the democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic and established a totalitarian state. The Reichstag Fire in 1933 gave Hitler the pretext to push through the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending civil liberties and allowing for the arrest of political opponents. With the Enabling Act passed shortly thereafter, Hitler granted himself the power to make laws without parliamentary approval, effectively securing his dictatorial hold on Germany. Trump follows a similar path in undermining trust in political institutions and promoting a system that centers around his personality. His frequent attacks on the media, his refusal to concede the 2020 election, and his encouragement of his supporters to “take back” the country reflect a broader trend toward authoritarian behavior. Both leaders exploited moments of crisis to centralize power, weakening checks on their authority and promoting a narrative of victimhood, where they positioned themselves as the only viable solution to the nation’s ills, even though Trump often created or exacerbated the very problems he claimed to have resolved—unsuccessfully, many times over.

For many Germans, life under Nazi rule initially seemed to improve, particularly in economic terms. Public works programs, like the construction of the Autobahn, created jobs, and rearmament fueled industrial growth. By the late 1930s, unemployment had dropped dramatically, and many Germans felt a sense of renewal. However, this economic recovery was tightly tied to preparing for war and the militarization of the economy, which would eventually lead to the outbreak of World War II. Trump’s rise to power, much like Hitler’s, was marked by promises to revitalize the economy. He focused on deregulation, tax cuts, and a commitment to bringing jobs back to America, appealing particularly to working-class voters in industrial regions who felt abandoned by globalization and deindustrialization. However, unlike Hitler’s success in directly stimulating economic growth through state-run projects and militarization, Trump’s economic policies did not deliver the same level of recovery or stability. The economic context, though, was vastly different. In Hitler’s time, Germany’s economy was largely self-contained with less interdependence on global trade, making protectionist policies more effective. In contrast, the modern economy is highly globalized, with complex international trade and interconnected supply chains. Trump’s “America First” trade policies, such as imposing tariffs on China, resulted in trade wars that disrupted these global systems, increasing costs for consumers and businesses. While limited job creation occurred in specific sectors like manufacturing, the policies failed to produce the broad economic renewal he promised. The “America First” rhetoric, coupled with attempts to recreate a more insular economy, found limited success in a world where global trade and technological advancement shape economic outcomes. Despite his focus on increasing defense spending and making America more self-reliant, Trump’s approach to the economy has resulted in mixed results, with many of his promises about job creation and wage growth remaining unmet. Even with his re-election in 2024, Trump’s economic agenda continues to struggle to match the growth and stability he promised during his initial campaign. Experts suggest that his current approach could lead to a recession, potentially echoing the economic downturn of the Great Depression.

Both Hitler and Trump utilized mass rallies to generate fervor and unite their followers. Hitler’s rallies were meticulously orchestrated spectacles, designed to inspire national pride and loyalty to the regime. Trump, too, uses rallies to rally his base, often creating an atmosphere of high-energy performances that reinforce his image as a strong, decisive leader. His rallies are more than just political events; they are theatrical experiences, designed to build a sense of community among his followers, reinforce their shared grievances, and fuel their hatred toward those he identifies as enemies, all in pursuit of his own objectives. In both cases, these rallies served as a form of propaganda, not only securing political support but also shaping the public’s emotional and ideological alignment with the leader. Propaganda played a critical role in both regimes. Under Hitler, the state controlled the media and disseminated messages that glorified the Aryan race, promoted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and portrayed Jews and other minorities as the root cause of Germany’s problems. Similarly, Trump’s relationship with the media has been confrontational, labeling critical outlets as “fake news” and promoting his own version of events. His administration’s frequent efforts to control the narrative and undermine institutions that contradicted his views mirrored some of the tactics used by the Nazi regime to maintain its grip on power. Both leaders used media manipulation as a tool to unify their supporters and delegitimize dissenting voices, creating an environment where truth became secondary to the political message.

The Nazi regime’s impact on social life was far-reaching, as it sought to create a society that conformed to Nazi ideals. The education system was used to indoctrinate the youth, with the Hitler Youth serving as the main vehicle for teaching children loyalty to the regime. This same system sought to control women’s roles, dictating that they focus on motherhood and family life, serving as the nurturers of a new generation of Nazis. Similarly, Trump’s rhetoric often emphasizes traditional family values and the centrality of strong national identity. While not as explicitly tied to gender roles as the Nazi regime, Trump’s appeals to certain “traditional” values, particularly in the context of his evangelical Christian base, seek to reinstate what he describes as an idealized version of American family life, with a focus on “law and order.” Additionally, in his current term, Trump has supported policies aimed at reshaping education, such as attempts to cut the Department of Education and promote school choice, which critics argue could influence the curriculum to align more with conservative, nationalist views. These efforts reflect his broader goal of reinforcing a society that prioritizes conformity to his vision of “American values” and reduces the influence of institutions he sees as promoting liberal or progressive ideals.

The persecution of minorities was one of the darkest chapters of Hitler’s rule. Jews, Roma, disabled individuals, and political dissidents were marginalized, with the regime passing laws that excluded them from public life and eventually subjecting them to violence and extermination. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 stripped Jews of their citizenship, and events like Kristallnacht in 1938 marked the beginning of a violent campaign against Jews that culminated in the Holocaust. While there have been significant concerns about Trump’s treatment of immigrants and minorities, his policies continue to foster an environment of fear, division, and marginalization. His administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy, which resulted in the separation of families at the southern border, was widely criticized as inhumane. In his current term, Trump has continued to pursue harsh immigration policies, including proposals to house immigrants in places like Guantanamo Bay, which some critics argue mirrors the inhumane conditions of Nazi concentration camps. Trump’s rhetoric often portrays immigrants as a threat to the country’s safety and identity, fostering division and resentment in ways that echo the scapegoating rhetoric employed by Hitler. These actions and words continue to fuel an environment of fear and intolerance, further deepening societal divides and exacerbating the marginalization of vulnerable groups.

As Hitler pursued his territorial ambitions in Europe, his aggressive foreign policies led to World War II, resulting in devastating consequences for Germany and the world. Similarly, Trump’s foreign policy is marked by a focus on American strength and a willingness to disregard international norms in favor of what he claims are the country’s interests. However, many of his actions, such as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, have been seen as attempts to reshape the world order to better reflect American dominance—and, at times, to serve his own personal or financial interests. Just as Hitler sought to reshape Europe for his own goals, Trump’s policies reflect a self-serving agenda, with the long-term interests of the nation often taking a backseat. While Trump’s policies are aggressive, it remains to be seen whether they will lead to consequences on the same scale of global conflict and devastation that Hitler’s did.

The fall of Nazi Germany came with Hitler’s suicide in 1945, as the Allies closed in on Berlin. In the aftermath, Germany was divided into occupation zones, and the full extent of the regime’s atrocities was revealed through the Nuremberg Trials. Hitler’s first attempt to seize power in 1923, the Beer Hall Putsch, ended in failure, but he learned from that experience and later came to power through legal means in 1933, consolidating his authority in ways he had failed to do before. Trump’s presidency, on the other hand, ended in 2021 with his impeachment, the storming of the U.S. Capitol, and his eventual loss in the presidential election. However, in 2024, Trump was re-elected and assumed office again, having refined his approach and learning from his earlier political missteps. His influence continues to divide the nation. While the outcomes were drastically different, both leaders left behind political legacies that are still being debated today. Hitler’s regime had a profound and lasting impact on Germany, which was only able to rebuild after decades of reconciliation and reflection. In the United States, Trump’s influence remains divisive, with his supporters continuing to champion his vision, while critics worry about the erosion of democratic norms and the rise of authoritarianism.

While the circumstances and outcomes of their respective regimes were vastly different, the comparisons between Hitler and Trump’s leadership highlight the dangers of unchecked power, populism, and the exploitation of national crises for political gain. Both leaders used fear, propaganda, and division to consolidate their control, reshaping their nations in ways that left deep, lasting scars. The lessons of history are clear: even democratic systems are vulnerable to authoritarian shifts. As we face new challenges today, vigilance remains crucial to prevent the rise of leaders who prioritize their own power and interests over the well-being of the people they are meant to serve. It is a reminder that democracy is fragile, and it requires constant defense against those who seek to erode it.